The nation isn't Union focussed by any stretch of the imagination. The Times readership and/or editorial staff might be though.

The nation isn't 'Union focused', but Union does a much better job at capturing the attention of wider audiences through events such as the Six Nations and the European Cup.

RL doesn't have that, and I think a large part of that is down to the sport's image. The Challenge Cup Final is colloquially known as "Rugby League's Big Day Out" - really? In 2018? Is a day trip to London really that much of a treat these days? We have resistance from the supporter base over Magic Weekend, largely fuelled by some sections of the support being incredulous that they might have to buy a train ticket or - worse still - a budget hotel room at event prices. And our "big event" semi finals are being held in the cultural and tourist Mecca that is Horwich, near Bolton.

The decision from The Times isn't one that should cause surprise. The Times understands its audiences, it understands the advertisers that it wants to attract, and it simply needs to produce content to connect the two. Look at the paragraph above and tell me that you're suprised that it doesn't see RL as a worthwhile investment to achieve that.

The decision from The Times isn't the death-knell for the sport on it's own, but there is a danger of "death by a thousand cuts" here. The Times isn't the first media entity to decide that RL has no commercial value to it, and it won't be the last. Super League Europe and the clubs (who, lets be honest, get an easy ride when it comes to issues about the marketing of the sport) need to do much more, and quickly, to reverse this trend.

And I share the concerns expressed by Saddened about the future TV deal. There's a lot of bluster from certain sections about how good a deal Sky are getting from RL, and how certain individuals can get a much better TV contract in 2021, but I just don't see it. I don't see that we're offering Sky any additional value to justify them paying more for RL content - in fact, I see the opposite.

I wish everyone would read bramleyrhino's post two or three times just to get it through some thick skulls

It's inevitable that Rugby League will dwindle IMO. It'll be back to the pre-Super League days over the next ten years. The decline we're seeing now will continue and we'll see a reduced TV deal from now on.

The main problem the sport has is that it's bankrolled by Sky. Sky don't give a damn about anything other than football, hence the incredibly poor presentation they do of Super League. But Sky itself is probably in serious trouble, it's whole business model is being scrutinised and the vultures are circling. The likes of Amazon, Netflix, Facebook and Youtube are going to make a move into broadcasting sports very soon. Once they do, if they price it right, Sky haven't got a chance, they'll lose Premier League football and subscription numbers will plummet. With such a small fan base, Super League would be lucky to get a deal at all.

Sky do give a damn about other things than football.

Formula 1 is one of the main reasons we went from having the hour Backchat show on a Tuesday, the hour long Bootsâ€™Nâ€™All on a Wednesday, an hour long Superstars show before a Championship game on a Thursday, a SL game on a Friday, an NRL game on a Saturday morning, a SL game on a Saturday evening and an hour long highlights show on a Sunday night.

Then they got the Sky F1 channel and we lost Backchat, Bootsâ€™Nâ€™All, Superstars, the Championship, we lost NRL a while before (but now have it back and more!) and the Saturday evening slot (which was always my favourite time for a game!) moved to a Thursday.

I sent emails to Sky complaining about what happened to the coverage of RL on Sky.

We have it a bit better now though (not because of my emails, im sure) as we now have THREE NRL games a week, weâ€™ve never had that before. We have Catalans on a Saturday evening (have done for four years now but we never had that third SL game before), as well as the Thursday and Friday slots for games.

Thatâ€™s five or six games of RL on Sky every week. Weâ€™ve actually never had that before.

If SL can keep pushing the Salary Cap up and keep attracting better players to stay in SL or to come to SL, thereâ€™s no reason why we wonâ€™t get a better deal from Sky (or someone else). Itâ€™s in the clubâ€™s and the RFLâ€™s hands to do so. Make it seem like weâ€™re too good not to have.

The RFL have persuaded the BBC to put all games for the 2021 World Cup live on the BBC (weâ€™ve never had that before! we have been consigned to Premier Sports for the last two WCs outside England games and the finals). So itâ€™s up to them to start making a fist of getting interest in SL out there too. And, for me, that is by getting better teams for those who can afford it. Nobody cares if they watch City beat Watford 6-0 in the PL. So why does it matter that they see Wire beat Salford 54-6 in SL, if we get almost NRL standard games between Wire and Hull, Saints and Leeds, Toronto and Wigan... THATâ€™s what is going to sell the game to the TV companies, not getting good mid table sides because the Salary Cap has evened out the sport from the middle out.

Also if we have these star studded teams, more fans are going to turn up to watch. Iâ€™ve noticed in the last five years that Union has left us behind with attendances. Their grounds are full (other than Sale). In SL youâ€™re hard pushed to ever see a ground outside Headingley and the Jungle anywhere near full. Wiganâ€™s attendances have hit a mud slide in the last five years. Wire and Saints never fill the seated areas in their grounds. Get better teams across the board and Iâ€™d bet youâ€™d see better attendances to go with it and the interest to broadcast games that have full houses will be greater.

I know the game is dependent on sky money but this really isnt any different then other sports and competitions. The NRL clubs are all heavily dependent on TV money.

Look at the football league clubs when ITV digital collapsed. Clubs were under serious threat of going under.

Cricket relies massively on TV money. The English cricket clubs would be going under if they didn't have the huge TV money that get from sky.

That's the way of the world now. Sport organisations need TV money more then anything.

Nobody is saying that we don't. However, we are now in an environment where broadcasters are becoming more and more discerning about what sports they pay for, and how much they pay for them. This week we have seen BT Sport drop UFC and NBA, they have already dropped Serie A, whilst Sky has dropped La Liga in recent months, all citing the cost of those rights as the reason.

All of the sports you mention have worked hard to ensure that their 'product' is delivering value for broadcasters. Cricket has invested massively in limited overs and T20 cricket (arguably at the expense of the Test team) because that's what appeals to TV audiences. The PL is carving out more and more slots in its calendar for TV (Friday night football, additional Satuday slots, etc).

If Super League wants more from it's TV contract in this environment, it needs to start offering more. At the moment, we offer a sub-standard competition, where the best players flock to the other side of the world, an audience that is hard to sell to advertisers, and we have clubs actively diluting our own TV audience by playing at the same time as our TV games. Gee, why wouldn't Sky pay more for that?

I wish everyone would read bramleyrhino's post two or three times just to get it through some thick skulls

Nobody is saying that we don't. However, we are now in an environment where broadcasters are becoming more and more discerning about what sports they pay for, and how much they pay for them. This week we have seen BT Sport drop UFC and NBA, they have already dropped Serie A, whilst Sky has dropped La Liga in recent months, all citing the cost of those rights as the reason.

All of the sports you mention have worked hard to ensure that their 'product' is delivering value for broadcasters. Cricket has invested massively in limited overs and T20 cricket (arguably at the expense of the Test team) because that's what appeals to TV audiences. The PL is carving out more and more slots in its calendar for TV (Friday night football, additional Satuday slots, etc).

If Super League wants more from it's TV contract in this environment, it needs to start offering more. At the moment, we offer a sub-standard competition, where the best players flock to the other side of the world, an audience that is hard to sell to advertisers, and we have clubs actively diluting our own TV audience by playing at the same time as our TV games. Gee, why wouldn't Sky pay more for that?

The flip side of your argument (as far as Sky are concerned) is that we now have Thursday, Friday and Saturday games compared to the one night offering that was there at the outset plus, magic etc.

You probably know the TV audience figures for the 3 nights, compared to the days when there was only one.

The other aspect about RL fans is that @we@ are difficult to sell to. However, taking the stereotypical view of your "average" RL fan, Gambling, drinking, sporting, dating etc should be obvious targets for where to pick up advertising revenues plus, the usual pay day lenders etcBtw, I apologise in advance for the above, which is not meant to cause offence, merely to demonstrate that there should be plenty of companies in these categories that may wish to advertise to RL fans.c

Btw, I apologise in advance for the above, which is not meant to cause offence, merely to demonstrate that there should be plenty of companies in these categories that may wish to advertise to RL fans.

You're right, there are plenty of companies that would like to tap into that market. The problem is that they can generate a much better return on investment by advertising in areas other than TV or sports sponsorship.

The audience you describe there is attractive to certain companies, but that audience's spending power is naturally limited. Forgive the wanky marketing terms, but those companies look for a "lifetime value" in their new customers, and that sort of audience usually comes at the bottom end of the scale. That means that there is a much bigger drive to reduce advertising costs to that group and focus on more acquisition-focused media, such as digital. A payday lender or an online dating site can reach our demographic for less than ÂŁ50 per thousand with the right creative in the right place.

One of the reasons RL (and sport in general) is so attractive to bookmakers and casino brands is because they are largely excluded from those cheaper forms of advertising. Bookmaking advertising, for example, is highly restricted on Google and is so heavily controlled on Facebook that it may as well be banned.

Again, at the risk of going too deeply into this, there's an iceberg up ahead called Sky AdSmart. It's rolling out en-mass next year and it will help Sky to much better understand how valuable certain audiences and pieces of content are to certain advertisers. I don't think it's going to be a good thing for RL.

I wish everyone would read bramleyrhino's post two or three times just to get it through some thick skulls

Quick Reply

All views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of the RLFANS.COM or it's subsites.

Whilst every effort is made to ensure that news stories, articles and images are correct, we cannot be held responsible for errors. However, if you feel any material on this website is copyrighted or incorrect in any way please contact us using the link at the top of the page so we can remove it or negotiate copyright permission.

RLFANS.COM, the owners of this website, is not responsible for the content of its sub-sites or posts, please email the author of this sub-site or post if you feel you find an article offensive or of a choice nature that you disagree with.